If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

“Hitler, who killed millions of people, was no good even if his motive was right,” Aso told a meeting of his faction of the governing Liberal Democratic party, according to Jiji Press.

[...]

It is not the first time the gaffe-prone Aso has made controversial remarks about the Nazis.

In 2013, he came under pressure to resign after suggesting that Japan should follow the Nazis’ example when considering how to change its constitution.

Since revising Japan’s constitution could trigger protests, Aso suggested “doing it quietly, just as in one day the Weimar constitution changed to the Nazi constitution without anyone realising it. Why don’t we learn from that sort of tactic?”

[...]

Earlier this week, the Simon Wiesenthal Centre said it had called for an investigation into Katsuya Takasu, a well-known plastic surgeon and TV celebrity, who highlighted the Nazis’ contribution to science and medicine, and appeared to deny the Holocaust.

[...]

In June, Yutaka Harada, a member of the board of Japan’s central bank praised Hitler’s “wonderful” fiscal and monetary policies, but said they had enabled him to go on and do “horrible” things.

It is one of the great ironies of Brexit that the United Kingdom’s messy divorce from Europe, sold as an effort to reclaim parliamentary sovereignty, has instead delivered its opposite. Last Monday, the House of Commons voted in the early stages of the European Union Withdrawal Bill to give the government sweeping powers to make laws without parliamentary scrutiny. These powers are named after Henry VIII, England’s most authoritarian monarch, but they in fact bear a greater resemblance to Hitler’s Enabling Act of 1933, which allowed the Fuhrer to bypass the Reichstag and govern by proclamation.

Allusions to Nazi Germany are generally overwrought, but this is no exaggeration: Prime Minister Theresa May does not have an absolute majority in the British Parliament, just as Hitler didn’t in the Reichstag in 1933, which is why she has been forced to resort to his strategy. If the withdrawal bill is passed as it stands, May will be able to make laws by decree and reverse and adapt primary legislation without consulting Parliament. It is the greatest attack on the British constitution in at least a century. Parliamentary sovereignty—the very thing that Brexiteers said they were voting for in leaving the E.U.—may be about to be vastly reduced by a cabal of right-wing Conservatives who say they are obeying the people’s will. Such power grabs, of course, are always done in the name of the people. The full title of the 1933 Enabling Act was “The law to remedy the distress of the people and the state.”

Let me ask a question. How common were major terrorist attacks like this before 9/11? There is no doubt it is far more common now. Now what has changed post 9/11? Why do we keep doubling down on the strategy that has led to a huge surge in these types of attacks every time it happens? They say we need to invade and bomb the middle East to prevent these kinds of attacks but the results are the exact opposite of what they promise.

I just don't understand the rational of people who want perpetual war and to give up our liberties in the name of safety when we are not getting the desired result. Then they use the terrorist attacks they caused/failed to prevent as proof we need more war and less liberties to prevent. It's a never ending cycle. For every terrorist we kill we are creating 100. This is the literal definition of insanity.

Let me ask a question. How common were major terrorist attacks like this before 9/11? There is no doubt it is far more common now. Now what has changed post 9/11? Why do we keep doubling down on the strategy that has led to a huge surge in these types of attacks every time it happens? They say we need to invade and bomb the middle East to prevent these kinds of attacks but the results are the exact opposite of what they promise.

I just don't understand the rational of people who want perpetual war and to give up our liberties in the name of safety when we are not getting the desired result. Then they use the terrorist attacks they caused/failed to prevent as proof we need more war and less liberties to prevent. It's a never ending cycle. For every terrorist we kill we are creating 100. This is the literal definition of insanity.

Everyone's solution to failed government policy is to double down on more government policy

And the suspects in the latest bombings are an Iraqi and Syrian refugee. Seriously it's playing Russian roulette bringing these people in. How many of these are you willing to put up with per year to bring in those refugees?